Dissecting The Bust

[rygar]

The public and state/city officials also need to take responsibility.  Everyone should know that weather forecasting is not an exact science and these things happen.

[Guest Pamela]

The public and state/city officials also need to take responsibility.  Everyone should know that weather forecasting is not an exact science and these things happen.

 

People themselves sometimes need to exercise a little common sense...at least those who are adults who know right from wrong.  If its 10 degrees outside and its snowing heavily...you don't take a trip to grandma's house just for fun.

[weatherpruf]

People themselves sometimes need to exercise a little common sense...at least those who are adults who know right from wrong.  If its 10 degrees outside and its snowing heavily...you don't take a trip to grandma's house just for fun.

If you live in Maine you do....

[weatherpruf]

I guess I've fallen a notch in your eyes since this morning's props...

 

*sad look*

 

I guess I've fallen a notch in your eyes since this morning's props...

 

*sad look*

Never.....just can't resist taking a dig at Mainers...spent a lot of summer vacations there the last ten years. I'll say this, ain't no such ting as southern hospitality up there. Don't dare cut someone off on the road. Could be a life threatening situation. But they seem to tolerate New Yorkers better than Bostonians.

[Clinch Leatherwood]

EC capture and tug scenarios are rare , but they are not unicorns . If you under forecast for 50 million people you are in front of a sub committee .

Sure looking back if they said 10 to 20 which BTW 20 at KNYC gets you into the top 5 and that's over 150 years . KNYC ratios were actually 13 to 1 . The 2.5 on the Euro and NAM would have done so much damage so all 3 offices pulled the trigger

 

It didn't happen . 1st time in my life I have ever been pissed while getting a foot of snow so maybe I am falling into the weenie trance this board sometimes puts me in

 

 

This is the 3rd one (2 in march 2014) and now this one where it was awful in being too fast to capture and spin.  I'm sure there were others I didn't pay any attention to as well.  In the upgrade they introduced a bias that is as clear cut as the old "it's too slow ejecting energy from the 4 corners"

 

I understand the ramifications of the numbers.  My issue was run after run it seemed like forecasters were acknowledging "The euro was too slow with the movement north" and "RGEM lifts further north and is discarded"....after the 3rd or so run where that was the case and the Euro was at exhibiting a stable bias... I am just surprised the RGEM was mostly ignored.

 

What's happening is the other models are getting better.  RGEM is improved and it's left tuck bias has been fixed.  GFS is still weak east a lot but somewhat stable.  Nam is just ...it's just useless. 

 

Anyway, I've just been trying to figure out what triggered the disregard for a reliable RGEM model over the Euro.  I do NOT believe it was fear mongering etc.  I really think it's ten years of the Euro dominating - and the RGEM still being the 3rd or 4th rung on the pole.

 

The Euro was so superior for so long....the others are catching up and in any given situation may be right.

[PB GFI]

This is the 3rd one (2 in march 2014) and now this one where it was awful in being too fast to capture and spin.  I'm sure there were others I didn't pay any attention to as well.  In the upgrade they introduced a bias that is as clear cut as the old "it's too slow ejecting energy from the 4 corners"

 

I understand the ramifications of the numbers.  My issue was run after run it seemed like forecasters were acknowledging "The euro was too slow with the movement north" and "RGEM lifts further north and is discarded"....after the 3rd or so run where that was the case and the Euro was at exhibiting a stable bias... I am just surprised the RGEM was mostly ignored.

 

What's happening is the other models are getting better.  RGEM is improved and it's left tuck bias has been fixed.  GFS is still weak east a lot but somewhat stable.  Nam is just ...it's just useless. 

 

Anyway, I've just been trying to figure out what triggered the disregard for a reliable RGEM model over the Euro.  I do NOT believe it was fear mongering etc.  I really think it's ten years of the Euro dominating - and the RGEM still being the 3rd or 4th rung on the pole.

 

The Euro was so superior for so long....the others are catching up and in any given situation may be right.

Agree with all 4 of those .

 

Hey if we close off 3 hours earlier OKX and DIX are hailed as hero`s for the heads up .

[Wannabehippie]

I doubt people out on LI are considering this a bust.  To me it really should be called a close call.

 

On a side note, how many Miller A type events do we average in a typical winter?

[jm1220]

I think a big part of it comes down to the +AO and +NAO, and how difficult it is to get a major snowstorm into NYC when there's no blocking. Also, this was a Miller B redeveloper, which nearly always leaves NYC on the edge, unless it's a rare 12/30/00 or Feb 1978 event. Uncle W called for 8-12" in NYC a couple of days ago based on +AO/NAO analogs, and that's about exactly what happened in the city. I was leery of jumping on board for a while because of it, but I jumped on the train and thought big amounts were coming because of the Euro being so steadfast. I don't think I've ever seen it cave like this so close in, and I've seen other times where other models came to it when it was the lone wolf. Part of me also favors it more because it called Sandy's devastating impacts before anything else. So I thought it was seeing something other models weren't, but in the end the pattern as a whole just wasn't favorable for a big impact west of Suffolk County and SNE. I admit I was a little troubled by the other models insisting on hedging east and the overall pattern and NYC's history with Miller B's were in the back of my mind, but I thought the Euro would pull through.

 

Upton and Mt. Holly are being hit hard for their calls, and I can't say it's completely undeserved. They bought into the big time snow solution lock stock and barrel, and brought up totals and used language not seen for storms besides epics like January 1996. I know they're very smart people and I'm sure they deliberated quite a bit, but I would have hedged lower given the uncertainty in the guidance, and the knowledge of how the general public would react to a massive snowstorm call, knowing that I could ramp up later if the stronger guidance turned out to be winning. Also, NY and NJ spent millions of dollars on shutdowns and overtime that ended up not being needed. I know for a fact I've never seen a 20-30" or 24-36" call from Upton (the point-and-clicks ranged from 24-37" totals for NYC and east) in my life more than a day out, and to think they made that call with so much uncertainty really raises an eyebrow from me. 9.8" in Central Park when 24-36" was mapped out for them and 1.2" at PHL when 14-22" at one point was called for them is a pretty hard bust. I know it could have been much different had the 500mb low closed off a few hours sooner, but to me it's hard to justify going so huge to call for a top 5 storm in NYC when the outcome was so uncertain.

[jm1220]

I doubt people out on LI are considering this a bust.  To me it really should be called a close call.

 

On a side note, how many Miller A type events do we average in a typical winter?

None of the guidance besides some wacky GFS and RGEM runs had less than a huge hit in Suffolk County. There was much less uncertainty there than for NYC and certainly PHL, but huge forecast totals were extended all the way there at one point. Unfortunately, this might make it harder for the public to listen the next time they call for a big storm. 

[Brian5671]

Going to go out on a limb and say that this is the 1st and last time you will ever see NWS go 20-30 or 24-30 more than 6-12 hours out going forward

[winterymix]

In retrospect, it was unnecessary to think this would be historic. None of the ingredients were historically potent. The pieces were impressive but not historic.

There was a vigorous upper level vorticity maximum riding the jet stream. The water vapor loop looked impressive. The short term radar was quite spotty though. I agree that the inverted trough was a fly in the ointment. It is possible that the inverted trough disrupted the timing of the energy and of the moisture convergence. The storm overcame that disruption but further north and east than modeled. I guess the models can't reflect induced changes in timing from a wintertime inverted trough.

[jm1220]

KNYC 12 

N shore Nassau County  reports of 20

Suffolk County reports of 28

 

Not sure if that constitutes a  hurt ?

It only feels like it hurt because the forecasts were so high .

If the forecast was for 10 - 15 @ KNYC and 20 -25 on Long Island  , we all would have though that a great event about to unfold.

 

I was always under the impression that pos AO and plus 6 inch snowstorms @ KNYC were very hard to come by , this would shatter that no ?

NYC has had numerous 12" or near 12" storms in the past 6-8 years, far more than the usual from before 2000. NYC can prepare a certain way for 12" vs. 24" or more-the latter requires massive shutdowns of transit and airports, and massive collaboration of resources to remove snow while preparing for life to essentially stop for one if not two or three days for most, while the former is a big nuisance for a day but the city can handle it and has before. The difference between both is many millions of dollars, and added inconvenience for millions of commuters. One model out of several generally reliable ones really predicted the huge snow totals for NYC, and the +AO and +NAO were red flags. It's a little mind boggling to me how the NWS came out with those totals and "historic/cripping" in their outlook when they could have released language like "this may be a very severe storm with the potential for 24"+ amounts, but the uncertainty requires us to play it safer with 12-18", 15-20", etc until the uncertainty is resolved". That gives them the opportunity to upgrade later but also cites that the outcome is uncertain, and it was still weighted toward the Euro. That's what I personally would have done, but then again I'm not paid to do this for a living and don't have responsibilities to millions of people-I just post on a wx board. 

[WintersGrasp]

Following the models only goes so far, as does making a forecast without using several models..... But the toughest thing about making the forecasts must be the fact that there really is no clear, consistent model biases, given the endless number of potential scenarios. While all of the models are reporting the weather, they are so wildly different in doing the same thing. Knowing the mathematical equations put into the models and deciphering their biases to apply to a specific type of storm scenario before it has even developed can help but only go so far, because it all changes from one model run to the next.....and meteorologists are left to determine if what has changed is weather-related, model bias, or both.....so I'm sure in many cases, all attempts to figure out where, why and if there are errors in the model's interpretations of the data are abandoned. Given that, the meteorologist is left with only two options really.....the first is to just base a forecast around one model's interpretation or a blend of multiple model interpretations, taking specific data from each and applying it to the forecast.....the second is to just base a forecast off of what they think will happen primarily based on experience dealing with that type of scenario, climatology, and obviously the model data, which has laid the groundwork.

Now I truly say this with the utmost respect, but as I see meteorologists make maps, including the ones yesterday, and change them based solely on new model data with Twitter and Facebook posts staying "new info in.....new map coming soon, as I will have to adjust amounts", it just makes me realize that the same exact data is available to the general public (with better detail and nicer looking maps with paid subscriptions). This is nothing against those that do that, because I know there really is no other option when making professional forecasts other than to make a forecast weighted heavily on the model's "new" interpretation of the data that it receives. Seeing these new, updated maps just means that either the model has altered its course (in which case it is data in the form of maps that I could look at myself anyway and see the same thing), or that the person is being a maverick and deciding to go in a different direction than the others, or what they previously thought.

Coming on here is refreshing because many of the posters (pros as well as hobbyists) on here are able to provide a level of information that is not available on the news or in the NCEP model data.....discussing what similar storms have done, model biases that they've noticed leading to disparities between them, and info from years of data collected. Many of you are really, really talented and there is always a good read to be found. I mentioned it earlier but I'll mention it again, uncle w's forecast here was for 8-12" for the NYC area way before the storm started and he stuck to it as it was about to get underway. He had based it on NYC's climatology and just how rare it is to get a 20-30" event in and around the city. Now I'm sure some model data was at least factored into it, but it goes to show you that sometimes the more information you have to compare, the more difficult it is to make a forecast, for reasons stated above in the first paragraph

[allgame830]

All I know is that something needs to be done with the inconsistency of these models.... However for this storm in particular only yet NAM and EURO were ever thrilled about it... All of the other models more or less continued to show a moderate snowstorm for the area, but the majority of us just kept discounting them because the EURO kept showing a bomb for 3 straight days. It never changed only until the 0z run last night. In fact it was even a bomb at 12z when the clipper was coming through the area. It obviously was a major bust for the NYC area but certainly not for Eastern LI and Boston.

[jm1220]

All I know is that something needs to be done with the inconsistency of these models.... However for this storm in particular only yet NAM and EURO were ever thrilled about it... All of the other models more or less continued to show a moderate snowstorm for the area, but the majority of us just kept discounting them because the EURO kept showing a bomb for 3 straight days. It never changed only until the 0z run last night. In fact it was even a bomb at 12z when the clipper was coming through the area. It obviously was a major bust for the NYC area but certainly not for Eastern LI and Boston.

The NAM should never be followed for anything like this. That's why I never comment on it even when it shows a 2-3" liquid nuke like it did yesterday. It easily could be brought back to bupkis next run. 

[tomcatct]

Going to go out on a limb and say that this is the 1st and last time you will ever see NWS go 20-30 or 24-30 more than 6-12 hours out going forward

It would have to be a monster miller a with every single model on board, even the his res short term ones...and yeah, 6-12 hours notice sounds about right....I was shocked to see up tons 24-36 in snowmap

[ILoveWinter]

I asked this earlier but just wondering if the GFS and the others in its camp (including the short term models) only verified because of events that they did not really factor in.  It just seems that the inverted trough kind of came out of nowhere (or was not seen by any Met when looking at the various model runs); the Euro would have verified otherwise.  Please do correct me if I am wrong. 

[jm1220]

I asked this earlier but just wondering if the GFS and the others in its camp (including the short term models) only verified because of events that they did not really factor in.  It just seems that the inverted trough kind of came out of nowhere (or was not seen by any Met when looking at the various model runs); the Euro would have verified otherwise.  Please do correct me if I am wrong. 

The inverted trough didn't stop the low from closing off too late. The low jumped east and formed late because there was no block of any type to stop it. The NYC area and west got shafted from the low taking too long to consolidate, and then when it finally did it was too late. 

[ILoveWinter]

The inverted trough didn't stop the low from closing off too late. The low jumped east and formed late because there was no block of any type to stop it. The NYC area and west got shafted from the low taking too long to consolidate, and then when it finally did it was too late. 

Got it ok, thanks.

[weatherpruf]

I heard Steve D might be on Brian Lehrer on WNYC tomorrow to discuss these issues. Not a fan of Steve, but I do usually listen to the Lehrer podcast.

[Clinch Leatherwood]

Agree with all 4 of those .

 

Hey if we close off 3 hours earlier OKX and DIX are hailed as hero`s for the heads up .

 

It's these situations that bring the science forward, and the forecasting.  That's why I think all the different viewpoints on what happened is so important.

 

For the record, I am not critical at all of OKX etc...0.0%   This area got clobbered and the reason it wasn't a disaster on the roads is people stayed home as required.   We've had bad busts, people still listened.  The same people screaming about an unplanned day off will be the ones screaming about getting stuck on a highway for 10 hours and how forecasters MUST give them more warning!  My question was more of the model diagnostic teams etc.  I've never seen them repeatedly disregard a stable solution without textual justifying the reason.  I found, and find that odd still.   And let's face it a lot of broadcast types, and also local offices look there for info.

 

I'll throw out one other thing that is absolutely relevant in the shorter/nowcast phase.  It's an absolute disgrace that so many buoys are missing/adrift or otherwise gone.   A disgrace that must be corrected, immediately.   Perhaps if forecasters had access to more buoy data like we did years ago they'd have been able to more clearly see a little earlier last night that the low was slipping ENE.

 

The politicians taking heat and the ones yelling are the ones not funding NOAA and the replacement of these buoys.  I 100% believe it's hurting shorter term forecasts in dynamic situations.

[ag3]

Yeah but from within the 5 boroughs and NJ it was an 8-12 inch storm. hardly 10-20 and most certainy not a historic life threatening blizzard with 20-30 inches. God bless Boston and surrounding areas. THAT is a blizzard! This was child's play. I personally experienced veritable Blizzard conditions for 1 hour. This was a monumental bust. Nowhere near as big as March 2001 but this is a close second because in first nstance models gave honts two days out but in this case The Nam and Euro were predicting 48 inches and 25 inches with the storm upon us. This was , by all measures, a forcasting disaster.

LGA reported over 11" and several parts of Queens were 12"+ including me in Whitestone.

JFK was over 10" as well.

[ag3]

The inverted trough didn't stop the low from closing off too late. The low jumped east and formed late because there was no block of any type to stop it. The NYC area and west got shafted from the low taking too long to consolidate, and then when it finally did it was too late.

The word shafted is a little strong. NYC and boroughs saw a solid 9"-13" of snow.

[Blizzard-on-GFS]

The word shafted is a little strong. NYC and boroughs saw a solid 9"-13" of snow.

I saw 4" just east of TTN and I was forecasted to get 14-22" from the NWS. NJ got extremely shafted in what may go down as the worst snowstorm bust ever for the state. 

[jm1220]

The word shafted is a little strong. NYC and boroughs saw a solid 9"-13" of snow.

NYC never really got into the heavy snow area that eastern LI and New England got into, unlike what was predicted. So NYC did get shafted. That isn't the same as saying NYC didn't get a sizable snow event. It just wasn't historic/crippling. 9-13" in NYC is a pain but manageable.

[MJO812]

NYC never really got into the heavy snow area that eastern LI and New England got into, unlike what was predicted. So NYC did get shafted. That isn't the same as saying NYC didn't get a sizable snow event. It just wasn't historic/crippling. 9-13" in NYC is a pain but manageable.

Upton's wording was really strong yesterday morning with them saying " Crippling Blizzard is on the way for the NYC area. "

 

CRIPPLING AND POTENTIALLY HISTORIC BLIZZARD INTO TUESDAY...

ACCUMULATIONS...20 TO 30 INCHES WITH LOCALLY HIGHER AMOUNTS...ESPECIALLY ACROSS LONG ISLAND AND CONNECTICUT. *

SNOWFALL RATES...2 TO 4 INCHES PER HOUR LATE TONIGHT INTO TUESDAY MORNING. * \

WINDS...NORTH 20 TO 30 MPH WITH GUSTS UP TO 55 MPH. GUSTS UP TO 70 MPH POSSIBLE ACROSS EXTREME EASTERN LONG ISLAND.

 

[USCG RS]

http://m.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30996010

Even the BBC is talking about it.

[dilly84]

I don't even think the bust is the issue here. Many models showed the NYC area would not be hammered. The issue is the Government banning travel before the snow is even an issue. Forcing people to stay home for a storm that hadn't happened yet. Then top it off with $300.00 fines or jail. Imagine getting a $300.00 fine for 6-8" of snow. These travel bans need to be done away with unless the storm is happening. That is the real issue, not the bust.

[Cypress]

there's a song for everything...

 

[Doorman]

there's a song for everything...

 

 

Ms. Cypress

 

turn on your pm

so I can say hello    

 

or l will call you the Texas Troll

 

T